Halycon too I realized.

Please list any new funding opportunities you can think of here on the Forum? I feel like we might already be in the early ramp-up to significantly more EA aligned funding. At the same time, the Forum's overview over funding opportunities feels like it is quickly getting outdated. I think as things move quickly, coordination might become looser and new promising interventions are identified, it is helpful for people to have a good overview over available funding sources and their priorities.

I have heard on the grapevine there is already funding on several fronts that might not be very public. I am a little bit uncertain if perhaps it is better these sources remain anonymous. At the same time, I think there might be several promising EA projects that are not sufficiently visible to people influencing funding decisions. 

Epistemic note: I am not listing these yet as I have not had time yet to verify how much they qualify as EA funding opportunities.

Here are a few recent developments I am considering listing on the funding opportunities page, but would like someone that knows these funds better to list them:

• Probably several I have missed - please list these here
• OpenAI Foundation - AI Resilience
• OpenAI Rosalind
• The Launch Sequence (not a fund in itself, but plausibly one can treat this kind of like a funding source?)
• Several of Renaissance Philanthropy's (RP) funds (several quite plugged in EAs do not even know of RP!)
• Astralis Foundation

Would those who disagree or down vote this and Tobias' previous post please provide some more information? I realize you might want to remain anonymous, so perhaps please just agree vote on this comment if you think someone should copy paste the the reasons for disagreement or downvotes from my previous post on biodefense that also received useful criticism.

Is it dying though? Maybe I have some filter I forgot to turn off but on new and upvoted posts, 5 out of the 6 highest karma ones are about EA criticism (including this one!) as well as global health and animal welfare. Anecdotal, but perhaps hopeful? Maybe there is more diversity and epistemic humility than we get from the podcasts and other sources biased towards funder priorities? If that is true, how can we stay in touch with this? It feels kind of like regular news media dominated by wars and accidents while the world is also amazing and getting better.

There is a possibly optimistic outcome here: That some significant portion of future donations will be put towards epistemic cultivation, criticism and diversity of thought in EA. In a sense, I think the Survival and Flourishing ecosystem is already spearheading interesting directions here, with a focus on AI epistemic tooling. Hopefully more will follow in diverse but similar directions, also looking to serve the EA community, or the questions we used to ask.

Chakras sound pretty theistic lol. But love this piece. On projecting neuroses - do you think a ~playful attitude might help? While still being serious about producing good work (I guess serious about playing?), but maybe a bit more "detached" or "integrated" (I don't know if play means more or less integration personally). Also thinking play and scout mindset (perhaps collaboration too) might go together - kids usually seem less willing to die on an idealistic hill than adults.

Was at EAG, "no seats left" on all AI talks, "57 seats left" on the biosec ones. Fully agree with others that biosec field building seems underserved. Anecdotal but perhaps illustrative. Thanks CEA for another event full of amazing people.

I'm interested in advice on retirement savings - mine are far smaller than Jeff's and reading this gives me slight anxiety haha. It would be action-guiding for me as maybe I should just not push myself to donate more and instead have a more solid retirement plan. Kudos to you Jeff on being transparent and generous!

Thanks so much Mo! I am tempted to make the following updates already - does this seem roughly right? Or is this still too high?

1. Token usage at 8 hrs centered on 5M tokens, with an upper limit closer to 100M. The reasoning for the
   1. Upper range of 100M being that more complex tasks (assuming those from the study you quoted were low hanging fruits) might push this higher (as indicated by the compiler example), while
   2. efficiency gains might push lower, it already seems that from METR's GPT-5.1-Codex-Max work <6 months ago it might, and this is very, very crude, be going lower.
2. Token price centered at $1 per million tokens, instead of $5. I could make this even lower as $1 might show a downward trend, but at the same time this low price seems more to be due to cache tokens which I had ignored in my analysis - the input and output tokens still seem priced at roughly the price I found

At the same time, I also feel like these numbers might still be too high - especially token price. The reason is that the super helpful links you sent point at pretty steep downward trends on token cost and point well taken on cache tokens being much cheaper.

Sent draft on DM - I prefer to keep this non-public both because my employer needs to review this before it goes out and also because I would like a few people to find my biggest errors before I put it out there. But I aim to get this posted publicly in the next couple of weeks. Thanks!